Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kosmoceratops/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2019 [1].

Kosmoceratops edit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinosaur which is said to have had the most ornamented skull of them all, therefore the cool name. Writing this article has also been motivated by a certain US president slashing the national monument which is the only place this dinosaur has been found in half, and hopefully getting this article to the front page one day could spread some awareness (I've tried to keep its wording neutral enough for that). The text can be pretty complex in places (as the animal has been central in scientific arguments about very technical concepts), so I'm ready to simplify and rewrite anything if suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Bobbychan193 edit

I was the copy editor in charge of this article after FunkMonk submitted it to the GOCE Requests page in July. During the copy edit, I read through the entire article and improved its prose throughout, contributing to the GA status it currently holds. The article is extremely detailed and comprehensive. There is room for minor improvements to be made, and I highly encourage experienced FAC reviewers to identify them to improve the article further. Overall, I think it is worthy of FA promotion. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is also nice that the CE has removed the wording further from the source texts, so there should be no close paraphrasing left. I did some minor adjustments to make some things less ambiguous, but otherwise it is kept pretty much as you left it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I briefly browsed through the version history. The changes you've made look good. Congratulations on the GA by the way. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the CMN 8801 image and the Kaiparowits Formation map
Scaled up the map, as for that skull image, it isn't particularly important compared to the images that show the subject of the article, so I think scaling it it up would be unbalanced. Also, the small text on it isn't important to this article, so doesn't really need to be visible (only the skull itself is of interest here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Durbed a reliable source? ABelov2014? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As "amateur" images they have been reviewed for accuracy at WP:Dinoart and modified further to comply with sources, which have been listed on their file descriptions so they can be verified by reviewers and readers. This procedure has been discussed and approved on the FAC talk page and other places, and it is agreed such images can be used here according to WP:original images and WP:pertinence (see footnote with links here:[2]). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second of these images provides no source other than the DeviantArt page. This discussion certainly suggests that as a minimum requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was an oversight, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Verification
  • No spotchecks carried out. I am slightly concerned that, in the "Discovery" section of the article, lengthy and complex paragraphs are referenced by long citation strings at the paragraph's end, with no indication as to what parts of the text these citations relate. This makes verification of the text difficult if not impossible. Would it not be possible to distribute the citations within the text?
It's because the citations often support different parts within the same sentences, but I've tried to distribute it more than it was. In places I couldn't get it below three citations, though. One place I've kept four citations since the sentence is supposed to reflect multiple sources: "Media outlets stressed the importance of the area's fossil discoveries—including more than 25 new taxa—while some highlighted Kosmoceratops as one of the more significant finds". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All links to sources working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Stick to one format for archive & retrieval dates
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent re. the inclusion of publisher locations for book sources
Added for all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 lacking page ref
Can't find this anywhere, and the pdf I have is some unformatted manuscript version. I have taken the number of pages from that, but it is unlikely to be the final number, since the images are not integrated in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto ref 38
It says "e5016" whatever that means (it is common for online published sources), but changed it to the pdf page range. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber edit

I forgot about this. I read it while on a bus some time ago. Looked good IIRC. Will take another look and comment soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*parietalsquamosal - should this not be, "parietosquamosal "?

Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2016, Mallon and colleagues found Kosmoceratops and Vagaceratops to form a clade, with their new genus Spiclypeus as sister taxon - "the new genus"?
Yes, more formal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Super Dromaeosaurus edit

Looks very good, although many of the terms are challenging for me. I'll continue later. Super Ψ Dro 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, quite a few links I had overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "ornamentation", "processes", "wetlands", "Utah" (first mention at discovery) and quadrupedal (lead).
Done both in lead and article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "subadult" at the lead.
Done there and in article body. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adapted to processing fibrous plants, and coprolites found in the Kaiparowits Formation may have been produced by ceratopsids." I find this "and" a bit unnatural. Maybe you could change it to "fibrous plants; coprolites found" or something like that. But it's possible that others with a better English knowledge disagree.
Changed to the more informative: "The teeth of ceratopsids were adapted to processing fibrous plants; coprolites from the Kaiparowits Formation that contain wood may have been produced by ceratopsids." FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe explain "postmortem".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complex slicing batteries" what do you mean with "batteries"?
A battery in this sense just means "a number of similar articles, items, or devices arranged, connected, or used together" in the dictionary sense, but I used the full term "dental battery" instead now, which links to the dinosaur tooth article, which should explain it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The forward-curving epiparietals had prominent sulci" explain.
Done, also added link. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually explain what a clade is but it's a somewhat basic term in paleontology, so it's up to you to explain it or not.
Added the more specific "group consisting of all taxa sharing a common ancestor". FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More links: "osteocyte", "blood vessel" (not really neccesary), "climate" (same here), "shell", "cuticle", "ecosystem", "hypothesis", "biologist". Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all except biologist and hypothesis, which I think are pretty common terms, per WP:overlinking. Linked mollusc shell and paleoclimate instead of just shell and climate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "coprolite" at the lead and maybe "cuticle".
Copied explanation for coprolite, and just found out there's an Arthropod cuticle article which I just linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a general use of adding a comma before "and" when enumerating (for example, "parts of the jugal, squamosal, and parietal bones"). I think that the comma in these cases should be deleted, but I leave it to your choice.
That is just serial comma, which is a style I prefer (I think it's good for directing the flow of the reading). FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a big problem.
  • The last links: "deposited", "shallow sea" (optional), "scavengers", "erosion", "Colorado", "endemism" (at paleobiogeography), "dispersed", "misnomer" (perhaps, I don't know how common is this word) and "Montana". Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked all just to be safe. Also linked sediments... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "palynomorphs" and "orogenic".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "western North Americ" missing letter.
What the... Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and drained into the Western Interior Seaway, and the Gulf Coast region of the United States has been proposed as a good modern analogue" again, I think this "and" can be replaced by something else.
Replaced with semicolon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a silty sandstone channel lithofacies" I assume that the last word is in singular. You probably should explain what a "lithofacies" is.
Facies is both plural an singular, as that article states. Added explanation, though I'm not sure if it makes it less confusing... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which suggests a pond environmet" fix this typo.
Amazing, how did this and the other one get through, and good you noticed, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier when you have to pay more attention when reading in a foreign language... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be an invalid nomen dubium" italics.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paleobiogeography subsection is quite long, do you think there could be some way to divide it into... subsubsections?
I thought of it before, but it's hard to find a way to justify a split. Chronological? Responses to the initial claims? Not sure what such a section would be called. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess nothing can be done here... Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be everything. Very good article, I have no doubt that it will become a FA. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed a lot of stuff that should have been fixed long ago, so a very helpful first FAC review (I think it's your first?)! FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, it's my first FAC review. I found this easier than a GAN review since you know that it's not up to you and you don't need to hurry. I might review more in the future. Regarding this article, I guess now I can give my support. Super Ψ Dro 08:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, there's not as much time pressure, but the FA criteria are stricter. But since you've already had a FAC nomination yourself that is successful so far, you know the drill... FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kosmoceratops/archive1&oldid=917038403"